Your Guiding Light Through The Progressive Fog

Archive

Monthly Archives: May 2015

Last week Senator Ted Cruz showed the world just why it is that he is one of the three legitimate candidates in the GOP field. When you run as a Republican there are a few things you have to understand, first and foremost is do not expect fair treatment from the media. You could be the smartest man on the planet, they could agree with everything you say, but because you have a R in front of your name, they assume their job is to ultimately destroy you.

This is a trap that Republican candidates fall into far to often. They assume the media is unbiased, and is just interested in getting the story out to the people. For some reason or other, they also choose to listen to Democrats and Progressives, who tell them that they cannot defend themselves in front of the media. They cannot challenge the media, they have to accept the premise of whatever argument the media throws out, and then try to defend themselves against it. If they don’t, if they stand up to the media, if they dare stand up for themselves, if they dare call out so called “reporters”, they will only serve to upset the “independents”… or is it the moderates this year… no the moderates were the “must win in” 2008… I digress. Republicans fall for this trick, far to often, and thus are never able to go on the offensive. They can never talk about their agenda. They can only defend against attacks from the media.

I have to applaud Senator Ted Cruz for how he reacted the other day, when a reporter tried to snare him in this trap. I hold that Senator Ted Cruz is probably one of the smartest men on the planet. His mind is sharp, quick, and he never allows his mouth to out run brain. This intelligence, had led to a sense of confidence, which helps to prevent Senator Cruz from falling into this classic progressive trap.

A clear example occurred just last week in Beaumont Texas. Senator Cruz was approached by a reporter and asked this question, “Do you have a personal animosity against gay Americans?” This is a classic question to draw a lesser candidate into the trap. To progressives there are only two options for the Republican to take. Option one, they take a stand against gay rights, this is the route that most progressives hope they take. They come out against gay rights, thus opening the flood gates for countless campaign ads, and donations to the Democrat Party. They get to say things like “Candidate A is a bigot” or “Candidate A is stuck living in the dark ages”. The other option, the candidate tries to reach out to the “moderates”, and does not really come out against gay rights, but he does not condemn them either. Progressives still get to claim that the candidate is a bigot, and the candidate has now alienated the conservative base. A win win.

Ted Cruz though, Ted Cruz is far to smart to drawn into that trap. He responded by rejecting the premise of the argument being made. He did not accept that this concept that he has a hostility towards gays, and must defend himself. Instead he exposed the media for the spineless hypocrites they are. Senator Cruz responded by saying “Let me ask a question. Is there something about the left, and I’m gonna put the media in this category, that’s obsessed with sex? Why is it that the only question you want to ask concerns homosexuals? Okay, you can ask those questions over and over and again. I recognize that you’re reading questions from MSNBC”

The reporter, would not accept that answer, so he asked again, “Do you have a personal animosity against gay Americans?”

Senator Cruz replied, “I recognize you want to ask another question about gay rights. Well, you know, ISIS is executing homosexuals. You want to talk about gay rights, this week was a very bad week for gay rights ’cause the expansion of ISIS, the expansion of radical theocratic Islamic zealots that crucify Christians, that behead children, and that murder homosexuals, that ought to be concerning you far more than asking six questions all on the same topic”

Before I go on, I have to stop and say, this is the first time that I can remember hearing an elected official call the progressives out on this issue. It is always, “Republicans hate women”, “republicans hate gays”, but progressives stand silent when gays and women are massacred in the streets in the middle east. Hillary Clinton accepts money from many of these nations. Ted Cruz is the only elected person I have heard call progressives out on this. To expose their hypocrisy, to expose the lie of their war on individuality. They claim conservatives hate women because we stand against abortion, but they stand silent when Islamic extremists cut a woman’s hand off, or bury her up to her neck and stone her to death. We are told that conservatives hate homosexuals because they oppose gay marriage, but progressives like President Obama and Hillary Clinton try to negotiate with radical Islamic extremists while they murder thousands of gays in the street. Senator Cruz highlights this hypocrisy, and I think deserves a medal for it.

Back on topic.

The reporter was still not satisfied, and against asked “do you have a personal animosity against gay Americans?”

Senator Cruz replied, “Do you have a personal animosity against Christians, sir? Your line of questioning is highly curious. You seem fixated on a particular subject. Look, I’m a Christian. Scripture commands us to love everybody. And what I have been talking about with respect to same-sex marriage is the Constitution, which is what we should all be focused on. The Constitution gives marriage to elective state legislatures. It doesn’t give the power of marriage to a president or to unelected judges to tear down the decisions enacted by democratically elected state legislatures.”

An there it is, Senator Cruz drives the final nail into this line of questioning’s coffin. He explained his religious beliefs, then, without skipping a beat, flipped the argument on its head. He changed it from “look, look at the bigoted Christian Conservative, he hates gays, look at him, look at how evil he is.” to an argument of “Why do you hate Christians”, but better than that he changed the premise of the argument. He brought the conversation back to the concept of rule of law. The Constitution does not give the power to regulate marriage to the Federal Government, it gives it to the states, and to the people.

So Senator Cruz turned the tables on this would be political assassin. This hack did not get his headline, instead most people have never even heard of this exchange. It was swept under the rug, because it showed just how viable a threat to the progressive movement Senator Ted Cruz is. He did not cave to progressive pressure, he did not attack them and make himself look like a monster, he stood up for his beliefs, and took the fight to them. He did so in a calm, level headed, and elegant manner.

Progressive scum bag, Senator Lindsay Graham, all but announced that he was going to be running for President. He claims that he is running because he thinks he has the foreign policy experience that has been lacking these last six years. Now I know what everyone is thinking, finally the Republican Dream Candidate has entered the race. Yes, finally we have a candidate who can inspire the base, vanquish Hillary Clinton, save the economy, and restore our liberties.

Senator Graham must have finally lost it. Does he really think that he has a chance at the nomination? Honestly, with such power houses like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker running, just how does Senator Graham think his John McCain style politics is going to stand a prayer of getting within spitting distance of the podium?

Needless to say, I am happy to see that Senator Graham is running. I welcome him to the race. His candidacy serves to insure that the American People are going to have a real choice come 2016. Senator Lindsay Graham’s candidacy will help to insure that the GOP has a viable candidate in 2016. Not because he is somehow going to win, but because he is going to make it easier for candidates who could actually win the White House to win the nomination.

Senator Graham probably does not even realize just how beneficial his candidacy will be for the viable candidates in the GOP. Senator Graham’s candidacy is going to serve to help the GOP in two ways. First, his running is going to give viable candidates like Senator Paul, Senator Cruz, and Governor Walker a great opportunity to draw contrast between themselves and the establishment of the party. Thus GOP voters are going to be able to see just who the Establishment is, and for once actually be able to have a choice between big government progressives and actual conservatives.

The second way that Lindsay Graham is actually helping Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker is by acting as a parasite. You see the Establishment has already chosen who the candidate will be. They want Jeb Bush to be the candidate. For some reason they think another Bush is just what this country needs. Now, I have already explained in detail just why it is that Jeb Bush cannot win the White House, however, there is a very real possibility that he could win the primary. I have explained why running the establishment candidate as we did in 2008, as we did in 2012, is a horrible idea. So I must actually say that I am ecstatic to hear that Lindsay Graham is running.

The only reason that John McCain was able to lose the 2008 election was because Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee split the conservative vote in the primary.
The only reason Mitt Romney was able to lose the 2012 election was because Ron Paul and Rick Santorum split the conservative vote in the primary.

In both of those elections, more people voted for conservative candidates, however, the establishment’s moderate/progressive of choice won because the conservative vote was split. In both 2008 and 2012 multiple conservative candidates split the parties majority. Couple that with the consultant class’s war on conservatives and you have a recipe for a concession speech. I can vividly remember Charles Krauthamer saying Mitt Romney would not lose. I also remember thinking it was odd that Bob Beckel was willing to give Republicans advice to win elections…. but honestly we have been over this before.

So why is it that I am happy to see Lindsay Graham running? No conservative, no liberty minded, sentient human being is going to vote for Lindsay Graham. He does not stand a chance of winning the nomination. He does not have the name recognition, and he does not have the conservative pedigree (often voting with Democrats like his buddy John McCain) necessary to win the nomination. So his candidacy does not threaten to siphon votes from viable candidates like Paul, Cruz, and Walker. Instead, Senator Graham will actually help conservatives, the conservatives he is trying to silence (he is by no means a fan of Rand Paul). You see, 2008 there was only one progressive candidate, John McCain. In 2012 there was only one progressive candidate, Mitt Romney. Well 2016, we have many.

Lindsay Graham is just the latest in a long line of progressive candidates who are going to siphon votes away from Presidential Long Shot Jeb Bush. No one who would vote for Rand Paul is going to vote for Lindsay Graham, however someone who would vote for Jeb Bush could easily be convinced to vote for Senator Graham.

So I welcome Senator Graham to the race, and thank him for his service. He actually helping the party by running. He is insuring that his antiquated political brand will soon find its rightful place in the dust bin of political failure. Thank You Senator Graham, for helping to prevent Jeb Bush from getting the nomination.

On Thursday April 7th, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous three judge decision ruling that NSA collecting millions of American’s phone records violates the terms set forth in the Patriot Act. For those of you who do not know, the National Security Agency has been collecting phone records for millions of Americans who are not suspected of a specific crime. This ruling was a victory for individual liberty and rule of law in this country.

Americans like our privacy, we have an understanding that we have rights, rights given to us by God. They are not privileges given to us by a benevolent government. Thus we get rather irritated when our right to privacy is invaded, when the government starts illegally spying on us. Now I should point out that there are some people who are willing to sacrifice their liberty for security, and these individuals typically respond to such scandals by saying “let them look I have nothing to hide.” Is that really true, does the average American Citizen have nothing to hide from the Federal Government?

There are over 4,000,000 regulations on the books in the United States. Four million, is a lot, how could anyone possibly avoid breaking all of them, everyday, for their entire life? According to a study in 2008 by the Heritage Foundation the Federal Government has been adding on average 55 new laws a year, sense 1980, that works out to to 1540 laws at the time of the study. It is estimated that the average American commits 3 felonies a day. Three a day. Suddenly it is becoming clear that maybe you do have something to hide, worse yet you do not even know about it. The United States Criminal Code is so vast, and so open to interpretation (thank you “living document” theorist) that the U.S. Attorney can find a way to prosecute just about anyone in the United States. I am not talking about the criminal degenerates of the nation, I am talking about the average American. You know the middle class working man, has a home in the suburbs, a wife, a couple kids, commits three felonies a day.

I would hope now that people understand why it is that the NSA gathering bulk data on millions of Americans who are not suspected of a specific crime is dangerous. Imagine the political leverage this gives the Federal Government to utilize against the population. A Morally righteous man stands up against the government, speaks out against abuses of power, and is thrown in prison for a crime no one knew existed. Suddenly people start worrying more about staying out of prison, than they do about standing up for what is right. Suddenly the government has free reign to do what it wants.

Now is that going to happen tomorrow, probably not, but could it happen, yes easily. Do you really trust the federal government with that type of power? I know I don’t. I do not trust any mortal being with that amount of power.

So Americans have a choice, a big one coming up. In 2016 we are going to choose a new President, send a new person to the White House charged with executing the laws of this nation. We have to make a choice, do we want someone who will stand up against the NSA Spying program, or do we want someone who is going to defend it, possibly even expand it?

Right now in the 2016 Presidential field there are two types of candidates running. You have limited government conservatives such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker. Then you have atypical progressive, establishment Republicans such as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and although he tries to distance himself from that title Marco Rubio.

I am not going to waste your time by describing the views of presidential long shots like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. Instead I want to focus on two more viable candidates Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. These two have a real chance at winning the White House, the question is which one do you actually want in office.

Senator Rand Paul, is a well spoken, true limited government conservative. He has been speaking out against the illegal NSA spying program sense the story broke. A year ago Senator Paul sued the NSA, President Obama, and Eric Holder over the program. In a recent interview with Glenn Beck Senator Paul explained the issue with the NSA program.

“The Fourth Amendment is very explicit. It says you have to name the person. You have to name the things you want. You got to have probable cause, and then you have to ask a judge for permission. And one of the reasons we did that is, we didn’t want to allow general warrants, where you can be rounded up because of your ethnicity, rounded up because of your religion, rounded up because of your political beliefs. It had to be individualized. ”

So here you have a man who is standing up for rule of law, individual liberty, he is standing up against the government invading every private aspect of our lives. When he heard about the Court Ruling he boldly proclaimed it “a monumental decision for all lovers of liberty.”

It is very clear where Senator Paul stands. He stands for rule of law, he stands for individual liberty.

Then there is Marco Rubio, the senator that sold his soul to the GOP Establishment. The man who once inspired so much hope amongst conservatives. Senator Rubio has proven that he is no different than John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Jeb Bush. Shorty after the court issued its ruling saying that the NSA’s bulk collection of data over steps its authorization from congress, Marco Rubio decided to prove his credentials.

Mind you not his conservative credentials, no he does not have any of those. No he decided to prove just how loyal of a dog he is to the GOP Establishment. Senator Rubio actually stood up along side Lindsay Graham and John McCain, and defended the Patriot Act, defended the bulk spying of the NSA. Senator Rubio had this to say said, “I hope that I’m wrong, but one day there will be an attack that’s successful. And the first question out of everyone’s mouth is going to be, why didn’t we know about it?” And the answer better not be, because this Congress failed to authorize a program that might have helped us know about it”.

So it is clear where Marco Runio stands. Senator Marco Rubio sides with Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsay Graham, oh yeah, and Jeb Bush. His beliefs put him more in line with President Barack Obama than with the conservative base of the GOP. Tell me what is different between Marco Rubio believing in government having the right to obliterate the Constitution, and President Obama obliterating the Constitution?

The answer is one is a Republican, and one is a Democrat. At the end of the day, both are progressives, and both are a threat to the continuation of the United States of America. Both are a threat to the continuation of liberty in the United States. So you conservatives out there, and for Republicans in general. You have a choice to make. You can choose to vote for someone like Marco Rubio, and continue to see the government continue to invade our lives, bit by bit, see the number of felonies committed every day by the average American grow from three, to four, to five. See the government gain the ability to monitor our every move, all in the name of keeping you safe. You won’t have any rights anymore, but you will be alive. Hurray for being sheep.

Or

You can choose to stand with someone like Rand Paul, someone who will reverse the unstoppable growth of government. Someone who will end the war on our liberty. Someone who will actually preserve our rights. Someone who will restore the American People to individuals, rather than just numbers, cogs in a machine.

If you choose to vote for Rubio, you might as well vote for Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton. There is not a nickles worth of difference between them. Oh they make a great attempt to sound like they are conservatives, sound like they like limited government. But in the end Marco Rubio is no different the presidential failures like John McCain.

President Obama blamed Republicans for the violence in Baltimore, he stated, “I’m under no illusion that under this Congress we’re going to get massive investments in urban communities.” Now I addressed my feelings on this comment in the previous post, but I feel like it is necessary to more thoroughly expand on the egregious misunderstanding of what can only amount to an assumption of success in the War on Poverty.

President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty on January 8th, 1964. Basically President Johnson had this idea known as the “Great Society”. Where in the government would expand its role in education and healthcare as a way to fight poverty. Basically government “investment”, to fight poverty. Sounds familiar doesn’t it. So it was with the best of intentions that the progressives led the federal government into the war.

The question that I have to ask, how much has the federal government spent to fight poverty? In 2012 the federal government spent $668 billion funding 126 different anti-poverty programs. State governments kicked in $284 billion, bringing the total up to almost $1,000,000,000,000 in anti-poverty funding. That amounts to $20,610 per poor person in the United States. That is just for 2012. We have been fighting this war for 50 years. Over the last five decades the government has spent $16,000,000,000,000 (16 trillion) on fighting poverty.

We have spent 16 trillion dollars fighting poverty, to put that in perspective, that works out to 88.88% of our national debt. Lets compare the War on Poverty to other wars that we have fought. The prices are adjusted for inflation.

From 1917 through 2010 the United States of America has spent $6.727 trillion dollars fighting Nazi’s, Communists, the Empire of Japan, and Al-Qaeda. That works out to 42% the cost of the war on poverty. The question now is, we know how successful our military is, using progressive logic, I can only assume great things. In 50 years, the war on poverty has spent more than double what our military has fighting wars in the last 93.

So what has been the result of our $16 trillion dollar investment?

In 1964 the national poverty rate in the United States of America stood at a staggering 19% when Johnson gave his speech. Now the poverty rate sits at 15% of the population. Sixteen Trillion dollars, and the poverty rate has only dropped four points? Those numbers are hardly something to point at an proclaim success.

Of course, progressives will point towards early success with the war on poverty. Most likely they will blame changes to welfare programs made in the 80’s and 90’s for the lack, or dare I say reversal of progress. They will point out how when the war was declared poverty was at 19%, and by 1967 the poverty rate had dropped to 14%. That is amazing, the government started investing money to fight poverty, and in just three years was able to bring the rate from 19% down to 14%, an amazing drop of 5 points in four years. That does sound very impressive. The question I have to ask is, was that drop caused by the War on Poverty, or was it caused by other factors?

Trends are things that progressives often over look. They slap on blinders and only look at the information directly in front of them, thus missing the bigger picture. I would be very impressed if just by increasing government spending poverty went down, however, that is simply not the case. I can easily prove it to you. With two simple statistics.

President Johnson announced the War on Poverty January 8th, 1964, the poverty rate stood at 19%

In 1965 the first programs in the War on Poverty started taking affect, the poverty rate was at 17.3%

So between 1964 and 1965 there was no increase in spending, no new programs brought online to fight poverty. Yet, despite this lack of government intervention the poverty rate dropped 1.7%. Now, if one has an open mind, one must question whether or not it the government’s new programs really affected the poverty rate? Did the War on Poverty really result in the poverty rate dropping to 14%?

Again I return to the concepts of trends. Studying the trends in the poverty rate is a very effective way to see the results of the War on Poverty on the poverty rate. If President Johnson’s programs were effective in combating poverty, one would expect the trend prior to their enactment to look one of two ways. Either the rate was climbing prior to 1965, or the rate was flat (also called stagnate). So what was the trend prior to President Johnson’s bold new stance?

Well in 1950 the poverty rate was at a truly shameful 30%. Now of course we were still clawing our way out of the Great Depression, World War II was still a very recent memory, so it is not surprising that the rate was so high. The poverty rate peaked in 1955, and began a downward trend that lasted into the 1970’s. The rate did not suddenly increase after 1965 either.

So the poverty rate was already decreasing, prior to the War on Poverty, and showed little signs of being affected after it began. The only conclusion one could make is that the War on Poverty has had little impact on the nation as a whole, other than increasing the federal debt.

The rate bottomed out at around 11% in the 1970’s and slowly rose back to between 14 and 15% over the next thirty years. Thus, the natural reaction from progressives would be to point to changes in welfare programs made in the 80’s and 90’s (of course, blame Republicans). However, that is not really a fair or accurate assessment. The rate started climbing well before Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, or Bill Clinton had a chance to administer welfare reform. Nor is it accurate to blame lack of funding for a lack of progress.

President Obama has called for new investments in our urban communities, well when I say called for what I mean is he is currently blaming Republicans for not acting on an agenda item he has yet to put forth. So, basically, we are operating under the assumption that we are not spending enough money to fight poverty. Don’t worry that in 2012 alone we spent more money than it took to defeat Germany in World War One.

Mr. President we are spending more than enough to fight poverty, spending that defies justification. Today the United States Federal Government is spending 16 times more money (adjusted for inflation) on means-tested welfare and anti-poverty programs than it was in 1965. 16 times more funding, for no results. I mean I would expect the rate to be near zero by now with that much money being pumped into the economy. Isn’t that how it works, the government takes money from tax payers, gives it to other people, they then re-invest it, thus growing the economy? I am pretty sure that is the basic concept of progressive economics. Why hasn’t it worked?

Well the answer is the same as with every other failed progressive policy. The problem is not that there is not enough government, but rather there is an issue within society. People in inner cities are growing up in broken homes, going to broken schools, and have little hope to break the cycle. The War on Poverty has done nothing to actually help these people. Sure it has eased the pain, but morphine does not set a broken bone, alcohol does not heal a broken heart, and government spending cannot cure poverty.

50 years of fighting, and nothing to show for it. 50 years of spending, and the needle remains stuck. 50 years of fighting and the poorest amongst us remain stagnate. President Obama apparently does not know the definition of insanity, for the benefit of you progressives out there, the definition of insanity is “trying the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result”. We have tried spending, we have tried the mighty hand of big government. It is time to try something else.

Money is not the problem, culture is the problem. Until you address the crumbling culture in this country you will not be able to make a meaningful change in the poverty rate. People need to start taking personal responsibility for their actions. People like Al Sharpton need to stop instigating riots for political gain. People like President Obama need to stop attacking the fabric of this nation, and start attacking the virus that is attacking it. Of course he won’t do that, and Al Sharpton won’t either. They require the poor to be dependent upon the government for survival. They want the poor to think that those who don’t support radical socialist agendas are out to keep them in the dirt. They want people to be subservient to the government, it ensures their power.

It is sickening. The War on Poverty is a failure, big government spending is not the answer. We need a cultural revival in this nation. A return to the concepts of the 50’s, a mother and a father, raising their children, being strong role models, guiding their kids down the proper path. We need more parents like the lady who went off on her son for being at the Baltimore riots. Strong morals, strong ethics are what this country needs, and that is never going to come from corrupt thugs like President Barack Obama.

The riots in Baltimore are the sad side effect of the blatant racism that is allowed to run rampant a crossed this country. Sadly I have come to the firm conclusion that these riots are the product of shameless monsters who actually seek out tragedies so as to exploit them to maintain the racial tension that exists in this country. When I hear the media describe what happened in Baltimore or Ferguson as a White Cop killing a Black Man, I know they do not care about the cop killing the man. The headline to them is White Man kills Black Man. They might as well have just said “KKK strikes again”.
Pretty much any time President Obama opens his mouth my blood begins to boil, primarily because every time he opens his mouth he either insults me, assaults my personal values, or spews out pure unadulterated ignorance. Typically when it’s the latter he is putting his nose someplace where it does not belong, and then proceeds to make matters worse.
Well when he stood up to speak out about Baltimore, I should have known better than to listen, I should have known better than to pay it any attention, but I had to, I had to know what he said. When he started his speech, I actually had hope, hope that maybe President Obama was going to buck historical trends, and actually learn from his past mistakes. Maybe he has finally learned how to deal with riots. He stood before the American People and said, “That is not a protest, that is not a statement, it’s people, a handful of people, taking advantage of a situation for their own advantage, and they need to be taken as criminals,” Quite right Mr. President. The people who are destroying property are not protestors, they are not to be praised, they are criminals and criminals deserve to go to prison.
So I thought, wow, President Obama and I agreed on something, I actually contemplated going and winning the lottery, because I honestly figured that I had a great chance of being struck by lightning while turning in a winning lottery ticket than finding something that President Obama and I agreed on.

But……

It was not to last. President Obama could not waste press time to push his agenda. He could not waste this crisis. Rather than trying to heal a nation, he decided it would be best to capitalize on the suffering in Baltimore and use it to blame Republicans for the problems in the world.
President Obama said, “We have seen too many instances of what appears to be police officers interacting with individuals, primarily African-American, often poor, in ways that raise troubling questions.
It comes up, it seems like, once a week, or once every couple of weeks. So I think it’s pretty understandable why the leaders of civil rights organizations, but more importantly, moms and dads across the country would start saying this is a crisis,”
¬It was very interesting watching him speak about this issue. I could tell that his radical side was trying to sneak out; he searched for what felt like hours to find the words Interacting, and Individuals. Honestly though, I cannot believe that President Obama would say something like this. He is physically incapable of making a stand and condemning anyone who isn’t a conservative or a Republican. I honestly feel he would make an excuse for Osama Bin Laden on September 12 before he would think about actually condemning rioters.
This comment that seemingly once a week we are seeing police officers just gunning down innocent children is probably one of the more reckless comments he has made. I mean the last one that I heard of was in Ferguson Missouri where a teenager who had just robbed a convince store attacked a police officer, tried to steal his gun, and was then sadly shot and killed by the officer. There were riots after that incident, but only because the Administration decided they would make a civil rights example out of the officer. Now I have heard of other events between Ferguson and now, but I do not recall people setting fire to police cruisers in the aftermath.
Honestly, let’s look at the issue, President Obama is not citing statistics, he is not citing facts, he is just saying “hey my gut instinct tells me that this is happening more often”. I don’t know if it is happening more often, maybe it is. I doubt it though, I honestly believe that the main reason we are hearing about these incidents more is because we are more connected making it easier to get the information out.
He acts like these riots are peaceful, people even go as far as saying “well they started peacefully”, of course they did, so did World War II. Chamberlain achieved “peace in our time” by giving Adolf Hitler the Sudetenland. Does that mean that Hitler was peaceful? I am not saying that these people are Nazis, but I am saying that you need to call them what they are, and mean it. Stop making excuses for them, or trying to justify their criminal actions.
Now of course we always want our politicians to offer solutions, ways to solve the problem, and don’t you worry President Obama had some. Can you guess what his solution was? Spend more money, and of course blame Republicans.
President Obama actually blamed Republicans for the sociological and economic hardships in our inner cities, he said, and I quote “I’m under no illusion that under this Congress we’re going to get massive investments in urban communities.” Really…. Really… is this honestly a legitimate argument? Does President Obama really think that blaming Republicans is a valid argument?
Let’s forget the racist history of the Democrat Party, let’s forget the concept of a two party system all together. Does President Obama really think that he is less likely to get money for “investments” out of this congress than he was the previous one? Harry Reid ensured that congress did not pass a budget for over four years. Four years without a budget. We had four years of Harry Reid killing any bill that came to the Senate via the House. For Four Years Harry Reid stood as the biggest obstacle to democracy, yet now that the Senate is liberated from his tyranny now it is unlikely that congress will supply funding? Really. … this is a cheap political stunt that defies even President Obama’s low moral standards.
President Obama said, that we have to make investments in our urban communities. We have to break the school to prison pipeline. He then said, “That’s hard. That requires more than just the occasional news report or task force, and there’s a bunch of my agenda that would make a difference right now in that.” WHAT THE HELL HAS HE BEEN WAITING FOR THEN!
Really President Obama what from the Pearly Gates of Heaven to the vast expanse of this good Earth, to the deepest darkest pits of Hell has stop you from pushing this agenda? I want to see the votes where the GOP shut down these measures. I want to see where congress stood in your way of helping the people in these urban communities from 2008-2010. For the first TWO YEARS of President Obama’s presidency he had a super majority in the Senate, and a massive majority in the House. He did not require a single Republican vote to get his agenda done. Why the hell did he not do something then?
Oh that is right he was too busy pushing through healthcare reform that no one wanted. Yes while people suffered in the urban communities, President Obama was too busy passing Obamacare. Too busy stealing from retires whose only mistake was investing in Bonds from General Motors. He was too busy flushing money down the drain in “green energy” firms that collapsed despite billions in tax free money. He was too busy playing golf, too busy going on million dollar vacations, too busy bashing Republicans and defending radical monsters in the middle east, to give a damn about the people in urban communities.
He has no right, no creditability, no legitimate claim to have any moral authority when it comes to this debate. He is one of the people who helped create the violent climate in the inner cities. What do you think community organizers do? He has helped incite the violence that the people in these communities have been forced to suffer through. He has never missed a chance to bash police officers and destroy their creditability. He never misses a chance to blame white people for the struggles of minorities. Remember how far people like Barack Obama reached to turn the Trayvon Martin case into a racial issue. They actually changed George Zimmerman’s race. They created the new classification of “White Hispanic” to make sure the public saw it as a “white man shooting a innocent black child”.
I know radical progressive zealots do not care about facts, they do not care what I have to say. All they will say is “I am a Republican, so I am racists”. I do not care anymore. Look there is racism in this country. President Obama has shown it. He bends over backwards to defend rioters, but called protestors on September 9th, 2009 radical. He loves exploiting race to ensure that minorities terrify minorities. It is sickening.
Who is in charge in Baltimore? Who runs Detroit, New Orleans, Cleveland, or Flint? Progressive Democrats. So Mr. President do not act like it is Republicans who have brought this on the minorities, or have spread the seeds of racism. Republicans have not been ling to minorities for decades, promising to lift them out of poverty, while telling the rest of the nation they are too ignorant to survive without government assistance. Progressives have been promising for decades to help minorities, how much longer is it going to take.
We declared a War on Poverty under Lyndon Johnson, yet despite almost fifty years of government spending, the same percentage of the population still lives in poverty. Billions of government dollars have done nothing. What more is it going to take? How much longer must these people suffer before they stop buying the bullshit spewing from one fascists’ mouth to another?
President Obama told the nation that congress won’t act, so he will. He will break the law, and he will change the world, because only he is smart enough to do it. Congress won’t act, because congress can’t act. Nothing the government does is going to solve the problem.
There is a cultural issue rotting this nation from the inside out. Family values, strong family values are being destroyed. Families can’t spend time together. Families split apart, and children grow up without fathers, or mothers. Our communities are fractured, no longer does neighbor look after neighbor. All of this is the fault of radical progressive theology. More government spending, more government spending, tax the rich, belittle the church, belittle religion, praise eugenics organizations like Planned Parent Hood.
People have to work multiple part time jobs now, why is that? Is that because Republicans cut taxes and reduced regulations? Or would it make more sense that President Obama raising taxes, and you know, PASSING OBAMACARE had more to do with that? Let’s see one option makes it easier and cheaper to do business thus freeing up capital for investment and growth, the other makes it more important to do business, and forces business to push people to part time work? Short of shrinking government, there is nothing that the soulless, shameless wretches in Washington D.C. could possibly do to actually help people in the urban community. They are mostly to blame for the problems.
No, it is up to us, you, me, to do something. It is up to us to fix this problem, to help our friends, to help our neighbors. To stand up and say enough is enough. The government needs to get out of the way, so the economy can grow. We need to stand up and say “no more”, we need to be a community again, united again. United in our faith in one another, our faith in freedom, our faith in the promise of tomorrow.
President Obama only promises unity through hate, and that is what set us on the Road to Baltimore.